Maybe I'll order some for my new integrated.. If I can someone to sell some to me cheeaaappp =)
Oh Lee you're here! Do you bypass them with 100n or not?
Oh Lee you're here! Do you bypass them with 100n or not?
Malefoda said:
lol. No probs with supplying them. I'd definitely not bypass either BG's or Rubycon ZA's with anything. The ZA's are super-low impedence and are effective up to the High-Frequencies.
Lee.
Hirowemeister said:
Looks like the Jensen caps are the best..... I wonder why nobody recomends these 🙄
They're expensive and not for sale in many places. Also I don't know anyone who's personally tried them. Perhaps you could be the first Ricardo? 😉
Simon
Simon
Another thing to remember, it is also a case of "horses for courses".
As the writer of that articles questions, is his test method correct?
What appears at first sight to be clear-cut may not actually be the whole picture.
This article, http://focus.ti.com/lit/an/sloa069/sloa069.pdf , makes interesting reading.
Andy
As the writer of that articles questions, is his test method correct?
What appears at first sight to be clear-cut may not actually be the whole picture.
This article, http://focus.ti.com/lit/an/sloa069/sloa069.pdf , makes interesting reading.
Andy
Excellent article.
I know from testing caps at work on the LCR meter that when I increase the test frequency the capacitance uF reading drops, sometimes alot on really cheap caps.
Brent
I know from testing caps at work on the LCR meter that when I increase the test frequency the capacitance uF reading drops, sometimes alot on really cheap caps.
Brent
SimontY said:
Yes, to both in a way!
The bit in the article I found really interesting was the mounting of SM bypass caps.
How many have you fitted ( or seen fitted ) the "optimum" way????
Andy
One reason I don't bypass the smoothers, I generally find they add a harshness to treble and this document shows how unpredictable they are.
Brent
Brent
I agree with your findings.... of course if you use 25000uF smoothers, things might be differentrowemeister said:
😉
I think the rule should be to split the 25000uF or whatever into several smaller caps of different sizes.
That way the resonant frequencies are spread and the ESR is lowered.
This is similar (????) to the way the 4-terminal cap works and also slit-foil caps.
Andy
That way the resonant frequencies are spread and the ESR is lowered.
This is similar (????) to the way the 4-terminal cap works and also slit-foil caps.
Andy
poynton said:
Ahh, as used by Rotel! The paper looks good but I don't have time to read it all now.
Interesting to see SMT caps should be mounted side-on!
Simon
Acording to the TI text, while the section of the cap may be square, the insides are not identical in both planes....😀rowemeister said:
Very interesting reading indeed.
Ricardo
Hi Andypoynton said:
This article provides some light in the matter. I already new that different caps have different resonant freqs... Now I am wondering the extreme difficulty in calculating the several cap sizes to be fitted in parallel in order to reach a linear response curve.
Before this I have been studying passive crossover design and found similar problems.
There are too many variables because we are dealing with a very large bandwidth 20 - 20000hz or more.
I experimented a lot while modding the CD53 and built several analog psu´s and found that it is very difficult to parallel different smoothers without compromising the sound linearity.
Note: In the case of the digital psu´s, I found great improvements using this tech.
Can you please comment on my findings ?
Ricardo